@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @@@@@@@ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @@@@@ @@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
@ @ @ @@@@@ @ @ @ @ @@@@@ @@@@@ @@@
Mt. Holz Science Fiction Society
Club Notice - 10/06/95 -- Vol. 14, No. 14
MEETINGS UPCOMING:
Unless otherwise stated, all meetings are in Middletown 5T-415
Wednesdays at noon.
DATE TOPIC
10/25/95 Book: BEYOND THIS HORIZON by Robert A. Heinlein
11/15/95 Book: MIDSHIPMAN'S HOPE by David Feintuch
12/06/95 Book: TBD
Outside events:
The Science Fiction Association of Bergen County meets on the second
Saturday of every month in Upper Saddle River; call 201-933-2724 for
details. The New Jersey Science Fiction Society meets on the third
Saturday of every month in Belleville; call 201-432-5965 for details.
MT Chair: Mark Leeper MT 3F-434 908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
HO Chair: John Jetzt MT 2E-530 908-957-5087 j.j.jetzt@att.com
HO Co-Librarian: Nick Sauer HO 4F-427 908-949-7076 n.j.sauer@att.com
HO Co-Librarian: Lance Larsen HO 2C-318 908-949-4156 l.f.larsen@att.com
MT Librarian: Mark Leeper MT 3F-434 908-957-5619 m.r.leeper@att.com
Distinguished Heinlein Apologist:
Rob Mitchell MT 2D-536 908-957-6330 r.l.mitchell@att.com
Factotum: Evelyn Leeper MT 1F-337 908-957-2070 e.c.leeper@att.com
All material copyright by author unless otherwise noted.
1. I want to defend a very unpopular cause these days. It is a
cause to which everybody pays lip-service, yet surprisingly many
people seem to detest. It is the cause of objective truth.
Truth gets a bad rap these days. Most people seem to think that if
you believe in truth you are a bigoted troglodyte. You hear a lot
of people who say that there is no such thing as an "absolute"
truth. This is the age of belief in "relative" truths or no truths
at all. And this is in spite of the fact that "relative truth"
really is an oxymoron. I happen to admit to the possibility that
there is no real absolute truth. Then again I also admit to the
possibility that there are leprechauns. It is possible, but not
likely. I believe that in fact absolute objective truth does
exist. But it is one of the peculiarities of our age to assume
THE MT VOID Page 2
that it has actually been proven that there is no such thing as
absolute truth. This supposed proof usually employs the old story
of the blind men and the elephant. That is the story in which
blind men feel different parts of an elephant depending on where
their hand happens to fall. (This experiment is not recommended,
incidentally, unless you have a very docile elephant.) One blind
man feels the tail and says an elephant is very like a rope. One
feels a leg and says the elephant is very like a tree. One feels
the trunk and says that an elephant is very like a snake. These
days the point of this story is taken to be that there are many
different realities and in different realities an elephant has very
different natures.
That's all a load of duck tires.
It is time you knew the truth about the story of the blind men and
the elephant. The real point of the story, the meaning that modern
people did not want you to know, is that incomplete knowledge and
prejudice can lead you to incomplete and even to false conclusions.
But you see that story predates the advent of political
correctness. Today we know that no well-intentioned visually-
challenged person can actually be wrong. If the blind men are not
wrong they must be right and so if they say different things about
the nature of the elephant, then, in fact, the elephant must indeed
have different natures depending on point of view. This is a nice
comforting philosophy since you never have to turn nasty and tell
someone--particularly a blind man--that he or she is wrong. Under
this delusion, there is no right or wrong, just different opinions
and different realities. If Jimmy says on his homework that six
plus seven equals fifteen, well, maybe in his reality it is.
Suddenly we live in a no-fault world. If Jimmy clubs Tommy on the
head with a toy fire truck, well, from his point of view it might
have been the right thing to do. It is all in how you look at it.
Now let me be clear about this. There are incompletely stated
truths; there are no relative truths. And there must be some
absolute truth. Any logical system in which {A is true} and in
which {B implies {A is false}} darn well better not have B being
true and I don't care whose toes that steps on.
I heard on the radio a woman saying the most important thing that
she could teach her children is that there is not just one reality,
there are many. She had investigated a politically motivated
kidnapping and because the two sides disagreed on what the
situation was, there really were multiple realities at play. Can
it really be that it did not occur to her that at least one side
was not giving a full and objective and fully informed version of
the incident? She could teach her children to have open minds and
to question what they think they know, but she must think that
would be a real kick in the slats to the kids' ego. And if it
comes to her loyalty to truth or to her kids, she is picking her
THE MT VOID Page 3
kids' side.
Do your kids a favor; do enlightenment a favor. Don't teach your
kids that there are only relative truths. If you are going to
believe there is no such thing as truth, have a good reason for
believing that. [-mrl]
===================================================================
2. Okay, that was serious. You people who insist on getting a
joke, here goes: Why did GREEN LANTERN's bathroom smell so bad?
----------
Because he had no control over anything that was yellow. [-mrl]
===================================================================
3. AXIOMATIC by Greg Egan (Millennium, ISBN 1-85798-416-1, 1995,
289pp, L8.99) (a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):
Reading this was a delight, and worth hauling the trade paperback
all over Britain in my luggage. (Why is Egan so hard to find in
the United States? Of the eighteen stories, only four have
appeared in a United States magazine, ISAAC ASIMOV'S SCIENCE
FICTION MAGAZINE.)
Egan writes science fiction stories the old-fashioned way. No, not
with a quill pen--with a plot based on a scientific idea. What if
there were a drug that let you swap places with your alter ego in a
parallel world? What if you could send messages back to the past?
What if you could make your unborn child a genius? What if you
could use an implant to change your belief system? What if every
morning you woke up in a different body? What if they could
recreate you in a computer? What if people could custom-design a
virus to do what they wanted it do? What if a wormhole appeared at
random, trapping whole city blocks inside it? What if...? What
if...?
Science fiction used to have a lot of "what if?" stories. They
didn't have elaborate convolutions, or enough padding to make a
multi-book series. They were just, "Here's an idea. Where does it
lead?" Egan goes back to this pattern which served authors so well
for so long, and uses it.
All but one of these stories are from 1990 through 1992, which
indicates that Egan is a prolific writer. His appearance on this
year's Hugo ballot (for "Cocoon," another idea story) is an
indication that if his work were seen by more people, he would be
THE MT VOID Page 4
on the ballot more often.
If you're looking for that "what if?" sort of science fiction that
seems to have gone out of style, look no further. Ignore the back
blurb ("Greg Egan's fiction ... is cyber-wonderland") and trust the
quote from THE TIMES on the front: "One of the genre's great ideas
men." -[ecl]
===================================================================
4. THE GOLDEN NINETIES by Lisa Mason (Bantam Spectra, ISBN 0-553-
09503-X, 1995, 384pp, US$12.95) (a book review by Evelyn C.
Leeper):
Well, if she had titled it THE GAY NINETIES, it would have been
very misleading--especially with its San Francisco setting. More
proof, I suppose, that the English language is ever-changing. But
I must admit I keep thinking of it by that name, a much more common
epithet for the decade that "The Golden Nineties."
In any case, we have here a sequel to Mason's SUMMER OF LOVE. Now
since SUMMER OF LOVE took place in 1967, and this takes place in
the late 1890s, it might seem strange that this is a sequel, but
that's because these books are about time travel and the part of
THE GOLDEN NINETIES that takes place in the future takes place
after the part of SUMMER OF LOVE that takes place there. Got that?
When I read SUMMER OF LOVE I thought it was basically a non-science
fiction novel with a little science fiction thrown in to make it
more marketable. I suppose that whether or not this was true, THE
GOLDEN NINETIES was written as a science fiction novel, but in
spite of that it also reads like a work of historical fiction with
just a thin veneer of science fiction. A time traveler is sent
back to make sure a certain piece of jewelry ends up with a certain
person. (Could the fact that Mason's husband is a jeweler have
anything to do with this?) But this is like Hitchcock's
"McGuffin"--it's not really important except to give an excuse for
the rest of the plot.
As with SUMMER OF LOVE, I like what Mason has done with the
historical period, but I don't like the science fiction aspect, and
ultimately it distracts from the rest. Does science fiction really
sell that much better than historical fiction that it makes sense
to do this? [-ecl]
===================================================================
5. FULL SPECTRUM 5 edited by Jennifer Hershey, Tom Dupree, and
Janna Silverstein (Bantam Spectra, ISBN 0-553-37400-1, 1995, 483pp,
THE MT VOID Page 5
US$14.95) (a book review by Evelyn C. Leeper):
I don't know if it's that the series is getting old, or the new
editors' tastes are not as close to mine as the old editors' were,
but I found FULL SPECTRUM 5 a disappointment. Even the stories by
authors I usually like seemed below par.
The best story was Karawynn Long's "Of Silence and Slow Time,"
about what happens when we are able to "fix" genetic defects in the
womb. The rest are a mixture of moderately interesting ideas not
fully examined, or old ideas reworked, or exercises in style or
mood that don't appeal to me.
The various theme anthologies (some might say "multitudinous theme
anthologies") that have hit the market over the past few years have
come in for a lot of criticism, much of it probably justified. Yet
the fact remains that when I pick up one of these edited by Resnick
or Kerr or whoever, I can be reasonably that the stories will be
mostly mildly entertaining, with one or two very good stories, and
probably one or two duds. On the average, this is better than FULL
SPECTRUM 5 delivered. It's possible that the series may return to
its former level, when it was published such stories as Norman
Spinrad's "Journals of the Plague Years," but this volume is a real
disappointment. [-ecl]
===================================================================
6. DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS (a film review by Mark R. Leeper):
Capsule: Walter Mosely's Easy Rawlins detective
stories come to the screen in a moderately
complex mystery about a missing woman who
figures into an election. Denzel Washington is
likable as an L.A. factory worker who gets
pulled into the search and involved in murder.
The film is strong on atmosphere and paints an
appealing picture of the post-war black
community. Rating: high +1 (-4 to +4)
It's a hot summer night in L.A. Somewhere across town Philip
Marlowe is getting too close to the truth. And he is also getting
a mouthful of knuckles for his trouble. But that doesn't matter
here because this story is about Easy Rawlins. And Easy isn't even
a private dick. Not yet anyway. Right now Rawlins is just another
factory worker from Texas who likes to go around in a sleeveless
undershirt. In fact, he is not even that. He's had a little hard
luck so Douglas Air is building their airplanes without his help,
and he is trying to get by without their paycheck. With a bank
account that's crawling under a duck, perhaps Easy is getting a
little careless about whom he lets pay him and what he has to do
THE MT VOID Page 6
for the money. In 1948 L.A. that just isn't Einstein-caliber
thinking. So maybe his job tonight does smell like yesterday's
fish, but at least it is easy enough and pays enough. Too much, in
fact. Easy is looking for the mayor's missing girlfriend. Losing
her is making the mayor feel so bad he's not even going to run for
reelection. That's what the newspaper says. But somebody thinks
she has a taste for black men and is hanging out in Easy's part of
town. Easy is getting a C-note just for the looking for her. But
the next few days are going to get tough as a one-dollar steak for
Easy. He is going to be involved in murder and gunplay and crooked
politicians. And he isn't even a private dick. Yet.
Holding the megaphone was Carl Franklin of ONE FALSE MOVE. That
film showed Franklin had a taste for the rough stuff. But this job
didn't call for quite so much. Maybe some gunplay. What it called
for was late '40s atmosphere. For that he got Tak Fujimoto, a good
man with a camera. And Fujimoto lathered the '40s feel on like he
had to use it up. He had shot Denzel Washington before on the
PHILADELPHIA job. Washington slipped into the role of Easy like it
was a suit cut just for him. But muscling in on his scenes is Tom
Sizemore, whose creepy panache grabs the eye like a zoot suit at a
monastery. Lagging behind is Jennifer Beals as a femme fatale,
playing it stiff as a rusty gate hinge.
DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS was the first of Walter Mosley's Easy Rawlins
novels, and Franklin wrote the script as if the series was a meal
ticket he was expecting to punch again. While Franklin's telling
of the story gives it some twists, they seemed not so much after
seeing THE USUAL SUSPECTS with a plot that's tangled like a five-
year-old's first fishing line. But Franklin is playing the first
Easy Rawlins story with just some easy-to-take twists and some
openings like he is hoping to be invited back. Easy is not just a
black Philip Marlowe. Mosely and Franklin give him a simple charm
and the sly smarts to make him a character worth seeing again. Not
so welcome is Rawlin's sidekick Mouse, played by Don Cheadle.
Mouse is a loose cannon with a looser gun and has all the appeal of
green mold on a stick of butter.
DEVIL IN A BLUE DRESS was a likable piece of noir and racks up a
high +1 on the -4 to +4 scale. [-mrl]
===================================================================
7. Intersection 1995 (a convention report by Evelyn C. Leeper)
(part 3 of probably 6 parts):
THE MT VOID Page 7
The Wheels of If
Friday, 17:00
Hermann Ritter
"A talk by Hermann Ritter about alternate history theories."
Ritter began by saying, "History taught in schools is usually a
very dull business," explaining that there were no vampires, no
magic, etc. In other words, everything that makes fantastic
literature interesting is missing. So he became interested in
counter-factual histories (which oddly enough also rules these
out). Ritter makes a distinction between alternate histories and
counter-factual histories, and in fact his talk centered on this.
Counter-factuals are distinguished by specific realistic change
points. To justify a purpose for this, Ritter said that the laws
of historical thinking define it as a science.
Ritter explicated four rules which separate counter-factuals from
parallel worlds, etc. These are:
1. Laws of Nature: i.e., no aliens, superpowers, etc.
2. Law of Historical Evidence: i.e., you cannot have a counter-
factual if there is no historical evidence of the period (on
which to base a factual, I suppose). Therefore counter-
factuals cannot have change points before 4000 years ago or
so. (The figure is Ritter's; I suspect Egypt's history goes
back further than that.)
3. Law of Effect: Things happening with no observation (e.g.,
Shangri-La) don't count, and if the timeline merges back into
our own (as in A CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR'S COURT)
it doesn't count either.
4. Law of Intention: The author must intend to write a counter-
factual. For example, James Bond is not a counter-factual.
In counter-factuals there is usually a reference to our own
world (as in "Isn't it nice that X happened?"), or to famous
people in different roles, or to counter-factuals to their
own world. This also means that non-fiction that turns out
to be wrong is not a counter-factual. But Ritter considers
just about every fiction book as alternate history, even if
it is not counter-factual.
Ritter described three groups of material published on the topic:
1. Wargaming: as used by the military. Ritter said he doesn't
like this, because people are described as numbers, and it
sees history only as battles.
2. Cliometrics: a new economic history based on explicit models
of human behavior. It still uses formulae, but relies on a
causal analysis of fact, e.g., "If slavery had not existed in
America, then the Civil War would not have been fought."
Sometimes people add a factor--if Hitler had invaded England-
THE MT VOID Page 8
--but cliometrics does not do this; it only takes factors
away. These seem at first difficult to separate, but since
cliometrics uses numbers, it can only work if it has numbers-
--it cannot make up numbers for additions, but can "not use"
existing numbers for deletions.
3. Wheels of If: addresses the question of the individual in the
stream of time. This is an area overlooked by the other two.
Ritter claims counter-factuals date from 1931 and J. C. Squire's
anthology IF IT HAD HAPPENED OTHERWISE (later published under the
title IF, OR HISTORY REWRITTEN). Ritter listed many other
articles, mostly in German, whose names I could not understand. I
will assume most of them appear in Robert Schmunk's alternate
history bibliography.
Ritter noted that although not the most popular change point, World
War I changed more governments than any other war. Popular change
points, working backward, include the Chinese Revolution, World War
II, World War I, the American Civil War, the defeat of the Spanish
Armada (here Ritter listed John Brunner's TIMES WITHOUT NUMBER,
though earlier he had said that book wasn't a counter-factual), the
Black Death, and the death of Alexander the Great. Two other
possible change points he mentioned were not often used were if the
Irish Christian Church broke from the Roman Church, and if the
Scandinavians conquered Europe. (The former was used in books by
L. Sprague de Camp, hence the title of the talk. The latter was
discussed in Arnold J. Toynbee's "Forfeited Birthright of the
Abortive Scandinavian Civilization," in A STUDY OF HISTORY, VOLUME
II.)
All this, Ritter claimed, is part of the process of history
learning from science.
As part of the discussion, Michael Cule said that alternate
histories (counter-factuals) emphasize the consequences of our
actions. Alexei McDonald said that wargaming just says what *the
player* would get if he or she did something different, not (for
example) what Hitler would have gotten. And perhaps we should
distinguish commercial wargaming from military wargaming. (I think
Ritter was talking about military wargaming, but in English anyway,
the term covers both of them.)
People pointed out that asking "what if X?" invariably leads to
"how X"? For example, asking "what if the Loyalists won the Civil
War?" leads to asking "how could the Loyalists win the Civil War?"
(Fooled you there, didn't I?)
Someone asked whether this didn't lead to questions of free will
versus determinism, and Ritter agreed that to some extent it did.
But he believes that history is primarily a flow. In other words,
in general he supports the "Tide of History" over the "Great Man"
THE MT VOID Page 9
theory. However, most counter-factuals deal with specific people
and not with more general causes. Could this be because it's
easier to postulate changes if individuals can have large effects?
The talk ended on a sad note, as Ritter announced that John Brunner
had died of a stroke earlier today.
I went from this to the "High Road" party (for the Internet mailing
list), but apparently almost everyone had left already. I did talk
to Keith Lynch, who told me about the trials and tribulations of
bringing his bicycle from Washington to Glasgow.
BABYLON 5 Interview
Friday, 18:00
Marc Scott Zicree
(It was very difficult to hear this interview. Hall 3 had paneling
put up to divide it into four rooms and corridor space around them.
Unfortunately the paneling did not extend to the very high
ceilings, but only about half-way up (eight feet or so). Yesterday
there were no microphones, and no one could be heard. Today they
had installed the amplification systems, but they don't work very
well. And if there is more than one item going on, they compete
with each other.)
Since there was no party going on, I dropped in on this part way
through. Zicree was saying that it was Warners who insisted on
getting rid of O'Hare, not any sort of "mutual agreement" as was
described on the Net. Who knows what's accurate? However, Zicree
said that Warners usually doesn't interfere with the series. In
any case, Straczynski is a pragmatist, and is willing to concede to
Warners when necessary.
Zicree said that the networks getting more adventurous in what they
will run, and that some network executives even watch THE X-FILES.
Someone in the audience asked about "gratuitous spaceship shots."
(I can agree with that description.) Zicree says they're popular,
and besides, they need to write scripts to have crescendos before
commercial breaks, and spaceship shots make that easier. It's also
fairly cheap: while the opening credit sequence on STAR TREK:
VOYAGER cost US$1,000,000, the Mars matte shot on BABYLON 5 cost
only US$2,000 and took one evening. This is almost definitely the
death knell for models.
As far as how much the scriptwriters are told, Zicree said that for
"Survivors" he was merely told to have Garibaldi fall off wagon,
but not given any reason for that. Zicree says that in general
outside writers get the non-arc stories, so they don't need a lot
THE MT VOID Page 10
of information about future developments. Unlike with other
series, the BABYLON 5 books and comic books are canonical and do
connect up with the television story.
Asked about contradictions in various on-going series, Zicree said
that they come in because everyone gets exhausted. Then later,
writers try to write something to cover up the contradictions
introduced.
Zicree is currently working on MAGICTIME. The premise of MAGICTIME
is that all the machines stop and magic comes back; Zicree
describes it as having a "mythic structure within a modern
context." He thinks that Straczynski's "five-year plan" is a good
length and is looking at something like that for MAGICTIME.
He said something about bringing Kirk back in future STAR TREK film
scripts. When someone pointed out that Kirk was killed, Zicree
said, "Kirk's dead, but so was Spock."
The rest of the evening was taken up with dinner at the Ashoka,
with a long wait beforehand and relatively slow service. I guess
that eating out is considered the evening's entertainment here, not
a quick prelude to something else.
More than the Sum of the Parts
Saturday, 10:00
Pete Crowther (m), David Garnett, Stephen Jones,
Mike Resnick, Alex Stewart
"What makes a good anthology--the concept, the writers, the story
selection? How much does the need for a balance and a complementary
set of stories over-ride the quality of the individual piece? How
often do you have to turn away a good piece because it just doesn't
fit? When do you know if an anthology is 'working'? And is the
whole really more than the sum of the parts?"
From this description this sounded like an interesting panel.
Alas, Crowther started by saying that he supposed a "good"
anthology was one that sold well, and most of the rest of the hour
turned into a marketing discussion. However, considering that the
audience barely outnumbered the panel (surprising, with Resnick as
a draw--it must have been the early hour), it didn't disappoint a
lot of people.
Crowther said he sees too many anthologies in the United States but
Resnick replied that he thought we don't see enough, and would like
to see more opportunities for short fiction.
THE MT VOID Page 11
As far as marketing, Resnick said that if the publisher invests
enough money in paying the authors, they will spend a reasonable
amount on publicity to recoup their investment, but usually this
isn't the scenario. Instead, the best-selling anthologies are the
ones linked to movies. Even then, publishers screw up. Resnick's
DINOSAURS was delivered in plenty of time, but missed JURASSIC
PARK's opening by three months, and ALADDIN missed the opening of
that film by four weeks. These were both DAW, indicating the
problem may be specific to them, and the fact that ALTERNATE
PRESIDENTS did make its window (albeit a larger one) supports this.
In October 1992 I saw ALTERNATE PRESIDENTS in the front window of a
bookstore along with all the books by and about Clinton, Bush,
Perot, Gore, Quayle, and so on. It also got US$20,000 from the
Book-of-the-Month Club, which outbid the Science Fiction Book Club
by a considerable amount. (Usually the Science Fiction Book Club
can get any science fiction book for a very small fee.)
Jones said that the editor at Penguin in the United Kingdom was
fired in part because she paid decent rates to authors. Jones
feels that word rate should be the same as for a novel, but rarely
is, and in fact, the United States small press pays as much as
British mainstream press for anthologies.
Garrett contrasted magazines with anthologies, claiming that
anthologies don't have as firm a deadline. (There was some
eyebrow-raising over this. I think it's probably true that the
deadline is slightly more flexible, but there is--or should be--a
deadline. I would mention LAST DANGEROUS VISIONS here, but since
Resnick noted at the end that we had gone through an entire hour on
anthologies without mentioning it, I guess I can't.)
Resnick said the difference was that anthologies are sold around a
theme, and are usually by invitation, while magazines are usually
not themed (except by accident or perhaps a special issue) and open
to everyone. Asked why anthologies are by invitation only, Resnick
went through the arithmetic: the average anthology gets a US$8,000
advance for 100,000 words. At the standard rate of 7 cents a word,
that leaves only US$1,000 for the editor, who almost invariably is
splitting it with Martin Greenberg. It takes about three weeks to
do the work involved if it is by invitation, resulting in an
annualized "salary" of under US$9,000, or an hourly rate just
slightly above US$4. If it's open and the editor has to read
through a slushpile, it's considerably lower.
Stewart said that publishers insist on having big names to put on
the cover, so you need to be sure you will have a few of those in
any case. And Jones said that you don't make money editing
anthologies unless you're very lucky or very prolific (or a crook,
Garrett added).
THE MT VOID Page 12
Jones feels most United States anthologies are junk, and wants to
see more open slots for new writers. Resnick pointed out that he
*does* publish new authors. He has done twenty anthologies (though
won't be doing any for a couple of years because he can make more
money writing), and they have had six Hugo nominees, forty-one
first stories, eight Campbell nominees, and two Hugo nominations
for him as best editor.
Stewart mentioned he tries to encourage new writers and so sends
personal rejection letters rather than form rejections. Garrett
joked, "No one did us any favors so why should we help anyone
else?" More serious is Resnick's philosophy (given at ConAdian):
we can't pay back the people who helped us, because they don't need
our help; we can only pay forward.
Crowther, returning to the marketing aspects, said that if you go
with a proposal without a theme, it's a difficult concept to sell
unless you are an established name--such as Robert Silverberg--or a
series--such as Bantam's FULL SPECTRUM). Jones mentioned that the
themes get ridiculous, and gave the theoretical example of "vampire
angels," at which point everyone on the panel pointedly bent over
their pads of papaer and wrote it down.
Garrett said that NEW WORLDS in the United Kingdom had problems
with bookshops knowing where to file it: was it a magazine or an
anthology? Its numbering is high enough now that it could easily
confuse the bookseller; the latest one I have is number 172, but
I'm sure it's much higher than that now. Garrett noted that now
that AMAZING is dead, NEW WORLDS is the oldest name in science
fiction, having been started in 1946. He didn't mention WEIRD
TALES, but the revitalization of that changed its name and now
appears to be dead as well.
Regarding getting name authors, Resnick says that one way he does
this is to let authors "double-dip" with their award-quality
stories; that is, he lets them sell the stories to a magazine
before book publication. This is a bit deceptive to the reader,
since the book usually claims all its stories are new and written
especially for the book, but it is not, strictly speaking,
dishonest, since the book publication delay is why the story shows
up elsewhere first. Me, I don't care--if the story is that good,
the author should get some extra money and more visibility for it.
Regarding timing, Jones said his aim was to publish his big
anthologies right before summer vacations when people want
something like that to take. He also said that bargain book
reissues help. (We see that occasionally in the United States,
although seeing original anthologies published by Barnes & Noble or
other bookstores is more common.)
THE MT VOID Page 13
There was some discussion of the artistic end. Resnick best
explained the dilemma by saying, "As a writer you have to be an
artist until you write the words 'THE END,' then you have to
metamorphize into a businessman. With an editor, it's the
reverse."
There was a brief discussion of the short form versus the thick
novel or trilogy. My observation would be that not every author is
a Victor Hugo or a Leo Tolstoy. In fact, most authors are not, but
only some of them realize it and the rest try to write 1500-page
epics.
Someone suggested that magazines are actually the replacement for
general anthologies, but historically that doesn't make sense.
Magazines were around long before anthologies, and the 1950s were
the height of both.
Someone else said that a factor in buying anthologies was their
trust in the editor. But Resnick noted that he will edit
anthologies that he has no interest in if Greenberg sells the
concept and asks him to edit. Still, I think Resnick has enough
pride that he will do a good job even if not inspired by the
editing Muse, whoever that might be. As Jones said, "If your name
is on the book, then you have to be able to stand up and defend
that book."
Resnick said that one factor in the decline of the anthology is
that the readership has changed: "More people reading sub-literate
trash based on media events than science fiction," which I suppose
is why publishers like media tie-in anthologies. Stewart added,
"Publishing is run by bean-counters who don't read books and [who]
talk about product."
Resnick did observe that novellas by new authors are easier to
place in anthologies than magazines. "Magazines won't turn over
half an issue to a name they can't put on the cover." He also told
us to look for Brian Tetrick's "Angel of the Wall" and Nick
DiChario's story (the last one in Piers Anthony's TALES OF THE
GREAT TURTLE). Resnick said that in an anthology, the last
position is the strongest, and the first the second strongest.
There was some mention of one-author novella collections, and
Bantam publishes some stand-alone novellas by such well-known
authors as Robert Silverberg and Connie Willis. Young-adult books
are also closer to novella-length. But in general, short stories
(meaning shorter than 40,000 words) are dead outside of the science
fiction and mystery fields.
Asked what anthologies most influenced them, Garrett named the
Penguin science fiction anthology edited by Brian Aldiss (adding
that ironically he now edits Aldiss), Resnick named the anthologies
THE MT VOID Page 14
edited by Groff Conklin, Jones named the PAN BOOK OF HORROR STORIES
and DARK FORCES, and Stewart named the John Carnell series "New
Writings in SF."
Resnick closed by warning that the literary history of the field
will be lost if we can't convince publishers to reprint some of the
classic early anthologies.
Next I had to arrange for a bus from Heathrow to Cardiff. This was
not easy. I had the number for the National Express bus company,
and knew that the city code for it had been changed by having a "1"
prefixed, but I was getting some sort of message about having
dialed incorrectly. When I first tried calling, it was in the very
noisy Concourse, and I couldn't hear the message. Here I found a
quiet phone in the Moat House, and discovered that all Perth
numbers had been changed as well by having a "6" prefixed. So I
tried *that* number. But it had been changed to something entirely
different, with a city code I didn't recognize. I called the
operator. It turned out to be a special code for a number that
costs the same from anywhere, and I finally got through and made
the reservations for the bus. The three-hour bus ride is L27 for a
return ticket each, versus something like L55 for a two-hour train
ride from Paddington--and we'd have to get to Paddington. I made
the reservations on our Visa card and arranged to pick up the
tickets at Heathrow when we got there.
After this I had some time to kill, so I dropped by the Green Room,
where I dried out my feet and shoes (it had been raining fairly
heavily this morning, and even though we took the shuttle bus from
the Marriott we got pretty wet just getting there). I also
listened to jan howard finder talking about auctioneering, and
chatted with Steven Glover.
Deconstructions: THE GUNS OF THE SOUTH
Saturday, 13:00
Paul Kincaid & Harry Turtledove in discussion
"The deconstructions thread is a new concept for Worldcon
programming. To provide greater focus, we take a single work and
look at its genesis, evolution, content, ideas, and at the author's
view on it now. The format is somewhere between an interview and a
conversation, and the focus should be clearly on the specific
work."
Kincaid began by asking the obvious: "I want to ask how you came to
write this book."
"This was not a book I planned to write," Turtledove responded.
But Judith Tarr wrote him at one point about her new book, saying
THE MT VOID Page 15
that the "cover art [was] as anachronistic as Robert E. Lee holding
an Uzi." This led Turtledove to ask, "Who would want to give
Robert E. Lee Uzis? Time-traveling South Africans?" And so it
began.
Kincaid then asked about the problems involved in tackling Civil
War. Turtledove said that the main problem is that a lot of people
know a lot about it. As Turtledove put it, "I knew the vast
yawning depths of my ignorance." (I think he's being too modest,
or maybe he just does research really well.)
Was he nervous about stepping into an area that's been very heavily
worked by science fiction authors? "Somewhat nervous, but I knew I
could create my own place."
Turtledove said he started in the spring of 1864 in order to make
the South examine the assumptions under which they gained their
independence. By that point, the South had seen black troops, had
experienced the occupation of some Southern areas, and had seen the
(at least theoretical) emancipation of the slaves in states still
in revolt. As Turtledove said, he wanted the book to say, "You got
everything you thought you wanted. You're so damned smart, what
are you going to do with it?" (As Turtledove explained later, the
Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to Northern slave states--
Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware--or the occupied South.)
Turtledove said he had read Lee's letters twenty-five years ago,
and based almost all of what Lee said in THE GUNS OF THE SOUTH on
what Lee actually wrote. There is a lot of documentation on the
Civil War, Turtledove said, not like Byzantine history which is a
little piece of information here, a little piece there, and a lot
of leaps of inference.
Kincaid asked about the fact that revisionists now present Lee as
not such the great honorable gentleman, but Turtledove disagreed.
Turtledove explained, "I respect him as a man. He had a great many
admirable qualities, but he has a lot of attitudes I don't agree
with at all." He also added, "If the South had won on their own, I
don't think Lee would have been as liberal as in my book." He
explained that it was what he called a "Hegelian relationship": the
South Africans being so racist served to make the Southerners in
his book less so because they saw the horror of the extrapolation
of their racism.
Turtledove also said that there would have been emancipation in the
South even if they had won in 1862 but it would have taken longer,
and gave Brazil as an example of a slave-holding society that
phased it out without a war.
Kincaid asked about the lack of technology in the South.
Turtledove said he had help from Chris Bunch on how the South would
THE MT VOID Page 16
have tried to reproduce the AK-47, and they concluded that it would
have been possible for the South to reproduce it as in the book.
Turtledove also noted that the South seceded on the basis of
states' rights, but became more draconian than the North (in terms
of conscription) and also more centralized than they intended.
In any case, a Southern victory in 1864 would throw Northern
politics into turmoil. So, as Turtledove said, "I had McClellan
running as an act of ego, which he came equipped with a large
economy size of." And Turtledove's projections of vote totals led
to throwing election into House of Representatives, but he felt
that this would be considered unlikely by the readers. As he said,
"All history has to do is happen. Fiction has to feel real too."
Kincaid joked, "McClellan could never have won the election; he
would have just overestimated Lincoln's votes and assumed he lost."
Turtledove noted, "One of the stupidest things the South ever did
was replace Joe Johnson with Fighting Joe Hood against Sherman
outside Atlanta."
Turtledove announced, "I do not ever intend to write a sequel to
GUNS." His reasoning is that the changes he postulated are so
radical that it's too difficult to figure out which possibilities
are the most likely much further down the line. But he is working
on a different aftermath of a different Southern victory. This one
assumes General Lee's courier did not lose Lee's General Orders
No. 191. Hence there was no Emancipation Proclamation, the South
was recognized by England and France, so the South eventually was
recognized by the Union as well. Then the Union allies with
Germany in the late 1800s, leading to the Quadruple Entente. In
passing, Turtledove noted that in 1914, Custer would have been
seventy-five years old.
Turtledove talked a bit more about his research for the book. As
he explained, there are a lot of documents about Greek history (for
example), but the amount of detail/minutiae available for the Civil
War is far greater. But, "one of the nice things you find out as a
writer is that people will help you for no good reason." He wrote
someone asking about information about the 47th North Carolina
Regiment and the person asked if he would like the regimental
history and the complete roster of that regiment, for US$30.
Turtledove said it was the best $30 he ever spent. The result is
that all the people in the book in that regiment are real.
And this includes the woman in the book who served in the regiment
in disguise. "There *was* a woman in the regiment," and she was
well enough documented that he could use her. Other details
include the high percentage of those dying of disease, which was
twice that of those dying of wounds. The reason for this is that
many North Carolinans (who had lived in relative isolation) were
THE MT VOID Page 17
not immune to childhood diseases and died shortly after enlisting.
Regarding the South Africans in his novel: "Anyone willing to go
back in time and noodle with history to preserve a racist state has
a strong ideological commitment to begin with."
(At this point someone in the audience asked some question about
whether the 14th Amendment was actually legally passed. The
question seemed to be based on some theory that the state
legislatures passed it under coercion, but no one really wanted to
follow up on this complete side-track.)
In response to a question, Turtledove said he ignored time
paradoxes--he said he could always argue they are starting a new
branch and then going up that branch and down the old one to get
home.
Why the AK-47? Turtledove said it was produced in large numbers
and is the terrorist weapon of choice; it also will take the most
abuse of any weapon when used by amateurs.
There was some discussion of the war in the West, but I couldn't
follow it.
Someone asked how Turtledove could rationalize the invasion of
Canada, given the sea power of the British empire. But as
Turtledove noted, "Ruling the seas does you a limited amount of
good in a war against Canada." However, the beginnings of
independence for Canada came because "Britain decided it was a good
idea to start to create the semblance of an independent country
because of the United States's drum-beating" in the real Civil War.
Turtledove also talked a bit about his new book, THE TWO GEORGES,
which he co-authored with Richard Dreyfuss. It is set in the
present in a world in which the American Revolution did not happen,
the Gainsborough painting is a secular icon, and American
separatists hijack it.
Someone asked why, when the South Africans have lost, they don't
they pull out through the time gate? Turtledove's answer was that
they still want to try to save the situation. Asked about recent
changes in South Africa, Turtledove said there were "fewer
malcontents than I expected," to which someone in the audience
responded, "Perhaps they all ran away in a time machine."
THE MT VOID Page 18
Great Contributors to Screen SF
Saturday, 14:00
Jane [someone], Janet Ellicott
What a fiasco! This panel seems to have been added at the last
minute. The two panelists introduced themselves as "Star Trek"
fans, and one was wearing a "SeaQuest DSV" T-shirt because
Spielberg's name had been among the ones listed in the description.
To make a long story short, the panelists were totally unprepared,
and kept asking the audience what the audience wanted to talk
about. When someone suggested Ray Harryhausen, the panelists
thought about it a moment and said, well, yes, they *could* talk
about films as well as television.
They, however, ignored the question and said something about Gerry
Anderson. They also said that the critics said WATERWORLD was a
flop and didn't give audiences a chance to make up their own minds.
(But it was.) They also claimed that "Star Trek"'s vision was
driven by the author. (I didn't know that Roddenberry was an
author?)
I left; it was too painful to listen to.
[to be continued] [-ecl]
Mark Leeper
MT 3F-434 908-957-5619
m.r.leeper@att.com
The trouble with our times is that the future is not
what it used to be.
--Paul Valery